Whether theist or atheist, both sides of the debate usually share the same logical fallacy – the fallacy of non-existence. On that premise, science invented the ‘big bang’ theory while religion invented the ‘creation’ narrative.
At the heart of the dilemma lies the attempt to resolve a philosophical issue (the nature and fact of existence) by means other than philosophy. Neither science nor faith alone are capable of addressing such an issue.
The flaw in most of the ‘creation of the universe’ theories and beliefs is that they presume that there was once a condition of ‘non-existence’ out of which arose existence itself. It is not even possible to conceptualize a condition described as ‘non-existence’ and with good reason; any attempt to do so is contradictory.
To suggest that ‘nothing exists’ or or to refer to the ‘existence of non-existence’ is self contradictory and therefore meaningless. Yet from science to religion, we see an acceptance of the ‘existence of non existence’ as if that was some kind of valid premise on which to base any theories or beliefs.
To resolve the contradiction, religion’s narratives describe the ‘creation’ of the universe by a supernatural being most commonly referred to as God. Science has popularized a ‘big bang’ origin of the universe, followed by evolutionary processes that continue to shape the universe and life into that which exists today.
It must be made clear that by speaking of ‘existence,’ we are not referring to any specific entities or existents within the universe. Everything in the universe comes into existence and goes out of existence, subject to the law of identity. But the universe itself is another matter; it is the ‘supreme being’ – the ‘being’ of all, of existence itself.
To the supreme being has been given the name of God – and whether one relates to existence either by referring to ‘existence’ literally, or to God as the supreme being, each concept is axiomatic. This means that neither can be ‘proven’ or ‘disproven’ in any meaningful or valid way because any attempt to do so will result in contradiction.
Existence exists, and that reality must simply be accepted as axiomatic. Trying to find ‘explanations’ for existence is a futile exercise, and diminishes both religion and science in the attempt to do so.
Science is meant to investigate that which exists, not to entertain notions of that which does not exist. And religion is meant to provide a basis of morality and to develop a code of behavior that that supports and enhances human life, not to embark on metaphysical expeditions in an attempt to compete with science.
Unless each discipline restricts itself to its own jurisdiction of endeavor, resolving any theories of ‘creation’ either by science or by faith is very unlikely to result in any understanding of existence that is Just Right.
If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.